This article was written with David E. Lettner (david e. lettner and associates) a Planning and Policy Consultant specializing in Land Management issues.

ALTERNATIVES TO ANNEXATION

A petition for annexation is generally premised on three basic issues:

1. Justifiable land requirements necessary to accommodate future urban growth;
2. A need for urban municipalities to have jurisdiction over existing fringe development, regardless of servicing arrangements or type of use; and
3. A need to have planning control over an area beyond the existing urban boundary.

In justifiable land requirements, the alternative to annexation is that of mutual consent to a land transfer. However, this can't be reached unless appropriate consultive mechanisms are used to develop a consensus. In jurisdictions with planning districts, such issues can be handled as part of the development plan review process. In the absence of a planning district, joint meeting of both Councils can achieve the same results. In most cases, Manitoba Rural Development staff are available for advice and guidance.

Alternative mechanisms can be loosely categorized into the following strategies:

1. Revenue Sharing
2. Joint Ventures
3. Service Agreements
4. Development Plan Amendments
5. Zoning by-Law Amendments
6. Formation of Planning Districts

The mechanism for implementing these strategies is also one of dialogue and consultation. In most cases, qualified professionals must help planning districts or councils address the technical aspects of each issue. In recognition of the consultation concept and alternatives to annexation, the Municipal Act now requires the negotiation and consultation to be part of the application process.

Are alternatives always best?
Usually a negotiation settlement is the best solution because the solution is created by the parties as opposed to a third-party solution. However, negotiation isn't always possible or advisable. Alternative mechanisms may favor the unreasonable and dishonest applicants. Delays, uncertainty and cost may force the application opponent to agree to give up more land than is justified. Not all applicants will be earnest and well-intentioned, and some won't want a settlement. Some may not have valid claims and, in these cases, there should be no compromise.

The Municipal Act encourages negotiation and settlement but allows for an independent hearing by a tribunal where alternatives have not worked or aren't appropriate. No-nonsense procedures are needed to resist unreasonable claims. The Municipal Board should not be seen as an unacceptable alternative. It is independent from political influence, is reasonably efficient and can provide some certainty. A hearing can be set and completed within months and if annexation principles continue to be expanded and refined, there should be a measure of certainty.

The Future
Annexation / land management issues are now settled on and ad hoc basis with opponents settling in different terms. From one point of view, this can be favourable resulting in issues being settled with little dispute and cost. On the other hand, results are unpredictable as settlements are done for expediency, not sound land management principles. The use as a precedent for future annexation proposals is of limited value.

One way of coping with future boundary concerns is to have a boundary review commission. Annexations are primarily urban vs. rural and generally involve the three aforementioned issues. A commission will let these issues be resolved using the principles of annexation factoring in local conditions. Also, the commission could be mandated to review amalgamation as an alternative.

A trend in every level of government is finding ways to reduce the cost of services. Regionalization of service is an example of that trend. In municipal law, regionalization is the equivalent of amalgamation. In the future, amalgamation may well be an option. While not for every situation, amalgamation will at times be appropriate and, like an appearance before the Municipal Board, should not always be seen as being unacceptable.